Editor:
I am wondering why you emphatically asked the SCRD not to mess with Gibsons’ aquifer in your April 27 editorial (“SCRD risks major rupture with Gibsons”). Funny how, when Gibsons itself is risking contaminating or blowing its own aquifer, by building the 122-ft. George right on top of the very thin aquitard in a vulnerable location, it does not justify an editorial questioning this decision. Is this really an issue about the protection of the aquifer or is it about political harmony?
Perhaps the SCRD has deemed that Gibsons’ concern for its drinking water is hypocritical. That if Gibsons had not approved The George, in that location, they would have had a proven record in defending their precious aquifer and the vote might have been different.
Your concerns about the real risks of the SCRD alienating Gibsons seem strange to me. As in our national politics, our regional politics will have divisions, and lack of harmony, especially when it comes to greed about resources. In my opinion, the real risk is rupturing the aquifer, not a rupture in regional governance.
You say do not mess with Gibsons’ water. I say why not, when Gibsons is messing with it already?
Judith Bonkoff, Gibsons
